andyscotland

Qcad is good for "classic" 2D CAD - open source so the main version is free forever. The "Pro" addin adds some useful features and is €41, that includes updates for a year but you can continue to use the version you have indefinitely.

My friends continue to ask "is your extension finished yet" but have now learned to accept a simple "nope 🤣" rather than an explanation of where I'm at/what hurdle or side project or life thing has delayed it this time!

All true, although also this was more of an issue before RCD protection on 240v supplies was available/common. Obviously still inherently safer if the voltage to earth can only ever be 55V, as you're already in a safe state rather than relying on a device to operate. The other side benefit of 110v is that they use ceeform connectors which are more robust than 13a plug/socket and can be waterproof etc for use outdoors. However you can just as easily run 240v on ceeform if you choose. I'd agree, in the past 110 was very common when your options were mains or hand power. But much more common to see battery tools now. Also any trades that do have 110v tools will also almost certainly have their own standalone 110 transformer in the van. So long as there is a mains supply they can access, they can pop their own transformer there, run their own 110v cable to where they're working, and crack on. So I'd suggest in the first instance: - check which if any of your trades are going to use mains (110v or 240v) tools and if so where, and if they actually need you to provide a 110v supply. - if people are likely to need to temporarily run power from a mains socket to somewhere else on site, perhaps invest in some brightly coloured 16A cables (this kind of thing, camping/caravanning or theatre/event suppliers will have loads of options) with adaptors to/from 13A to allow them to do so safely.

@Onoff is correct on the official manufacturer's instructions, normally it would be toothed side to the box (point 1 on the instructions) - the idea is that bites in so you tighten by rotating the gland body. On a metal box, that is part of getting a good earth connection (through the biting teeth) between the nut and box body. However, on a plastic box that obviously isn't an issue - it just needs to be screwed tight enough to get a solid mechanical connection. As you've already glanded the cable, you won't be able to rotate the gland and there's no benefit to undoing that - so put the smooth side to the wall and tighten the nut, as per point 3 on those instructions.

Personally, yes I would go Wago box below the cabinet (assuming that's where the ring wiring is accessible). Although technically you could get back to it, it will be out of sight and a pain in the backside so a maintenance free junction makes a lot more sense than a socket.

We have some plates & bowls that get extremely hot in the microwave. Not a scientist, but I suspect either there is some water molecules trapped in the ceramic that weren't removed when the clay was fired, or there's some sort of metallic particles in the ceramic or the glaze that are reacting to the electromagnetic field.

Ah yeah that sounds much more faffy than actual Wago. Especially for stranded.

Indeed. I don't know for sure, but from idle curiosity when on holiday they seem fairly similar, but usually with more ways (even small ski apartments tended to have a board more like the kind of thing you'd see on industrial/commercial installs here with sockets divided into multiple radials where UK practice would usually be 1 or perhaps 2 rings for a 3 room flat). My hunch would be they essentially run the same cabling but instead of joining at the furthest point it becomes two radials at the CU. Indeed - although as well as the ring itself the other factor is (in normal domestic with gas heating) it's not that common for a ring to be loaded up to the full 32A for any length of time, if it complies with the floor area & outlet type restrictions. Especially considering that even if the ring is broken the sockets are still split between two cables (assuming you're not unlucky enough to get a break between CU and first socket). In fact that is the basis on which the regs allow the oversized protective device for the cable, rather than the ring per se. One way to think of it is the places you're allowed to use a ring would also be suitable for 1 or 2 20A radials without any concerns that they'd be constantly tripping. So although the ring is protected at 32A, most of the time the current will be below the 20A rating of the cable. The extra 12A just provides a bit of an extra buffer for short-lived concurrent loads. That said, I prefer radials for new work.

I am not a lawyer, and CIL is obviously something where you want to be extremely careful. However, it seems to me that "letting out of a whole dwelling" would (for other legislation) normally mean situations where the property ceases to be your only/main home e.g. you move out and take tenants. An Airbnb-style temporary arrangement where you charge people to share your home (even if you happen to be on holiday at the time) might not be the same thing. I wouldn't take any risks but if the money is significant to you it might be worth getting professional advice or asking the council for an exact interpretation of that clause before writing off the idea.

Is the internal circuit a ring main, or something else? Is there a fused spur unit where it connects to the internal circuit, or is it just connected to the back of a socket / a junction box etc? If it's connected direct (e.g. it is an "unfused spur") then it should be wired in the same size cable as the rest of the circuit (likely 2.5mm²) but it can only serve a single point (single socket/double socket/light).

The cable sizing partly depends on where/how the circuit is supplied from and the sizing of the protective device. Is this direct from the consumer unit or a fused/unfused spur from something else? I assume the circuit already has RCD protection (wasn't always provided for exterior lights in the old days but definitely required for a socket).

Indeed. I think they've invented that requirement (or are repeating from a scheme provider who have invented it). Neither BS7671 or the On Site Guide specify any limit on the number of unfused spurs connected to a single outlet. The only stated limit is for outlets on a spur. The only factor would be the requirement (only present in the On Site Guide) not to have more unfused spurs than outlets/appliances actually in the ring. And of course the capacity of the outlet terminals as @Nickfromwales said. Spurs on ring finals are a bit of a historical anomaly. Despite being ubiquitous in the UK, until the 17th edition these circuits were barely covered in 7671 itself, and only detailed in the On Site Guide. The OSG is basically just there to save everyone having to work from first principles (and make mistakes). The overall requirement is that the circuit is not likely to be overloaded for a significant period and that load is reasonably distributed around the ring. This is what allows using a cable that is technically undersized for the protective device (in fact a little overheating helps by increasing resistance and sending some current down the other leg of the ring). However since there is no requirement for any particular spacing between outlets, you could without question have two double sockets or two junction boxes beside each other and a spur off each one. Taking two spurs from one socket is essentially identical electrically - arguably better, since there are fewer sockets overall at that point in the ring. But it does depend on a little common sense about expected use. If you want to plug in 6 phone chargers and laptops, no problem. If you're needing to plug in 6 kettles then that might not be the best circuit design.

Interesting... I wonder when that changed. Certainly after I trained (which was a while ago, though well after the new colours were introduced). Very helpful to know though!

Old fashioned screw terminals have been around a long time and if properly installed are fine, there are millions of houses using them. That said, I am a huge convert to Wago (lever-style) and similar connectors. They make it much easier to get a reliable long-term connection at the full current carrying capacity of the conductor, and eliminate a whole class of potential issues. And (unlike screw terminals, which can work loose over time) do not require future inspection/maintenance.

As far as I know there's no actual requirement for front doors to open in (unless you are directly onto the pavement/highway), it's just a tradition. So I don't see any reason why a back door can't open out (and lots do, almost all patio doors for example).

I'd do the same. TBH once you're sleeving cores there's no real requirement to follow any particular colour code but I feel like at least black was neutral in the old UK colours so there's a kind of logic to that. Just make sure you do sleeve (/tape) the cores at each end so that if someone disconnects one end for some reason it's obvious how to reconnect without having to open up the other to check. And second the recommendation for Storm glands in future.

Yes, the fewer bends the better. If you do have bends then (in the UK at least) you'd need to have inspection chambers or an alternative way of getting rodding access at every change of direction.

It's not really possible to say without knowing how deep the drains are at the point you'd be connecting: the limiting factor for any drainage run is the gradient of the pipe. Do you have any information on the routing of the existing drains outside the property - might there be an opportunity to connect to the pipe underground nearer than those connection points? I'm also not sure whether France uses combined (foul & rainwater in one pipe) or separate drains: the photo looks like there's a rainwater downpipe at the bottom right corner of the house, if you were able to connect there (depending on depth) that would reduce the length of run. Would you be planning to run in a straight line under the floor from point A to the front of the property, or would you have to go round the outside?

I noticed that, also that even the company chief execs & people talking about their products seemed to have no "charisma" by modern standards: no way anyone getting interviewed about their work would get away with being that dry these days.

Oh yeah that bit had me on the edge of my seat waiting for it to all avalanche off the roof with him on top! Even knowing that they'd probably have cut that bit of footage out of required 🤣

One option for that is to use a double top plate. Build the panel on the ground with a single top plate with a good length of excess membrane overhanging the top. Swing it up & position it, then slide the second top plate into the gap between the panel and the overhanging membrane (so you end up with the membrane behind and over the top - then just cut off the excess). You can insert a couple of packers between the two top plates if needed get a tight fit. If the height is still too low for that you can also use a double sole plate. Fix it to the floor, swing the panel up beside it, then lift it on, then do the top plate trick as above. This obviously means having to lift the weight of the whole stud wall although you could build it in sections if necessary. This does of course increase the timber fraction/reduce insulation of the wall slightly.

I wasn't necessarily suggesting using them. The downside IMO is it's harder to get a good airtight/vapour-tight seal between boards. It's also harder to fix things to them - most plasterboard fixings assume a cavity behind the board, and will be harder/impossible to get them to spread out properly if the board is backed by insulation. Plus removing/moving things on plasterboard leaves a mess. If you want a tool wall/cleats etc then OSB or ply would give you a lot more flexibility. Yes, I suspect it will be.

I think you do need a DPM (or at least DPC strips between the timber and the brick) as it is drawn, assuming this is a single skin wall. Unless you do this: The other option would be to use a continuous layer of PIR on 25mm roofing battens on DPC strips, like this detail for eco-liner https://www.insulationbee.co.uk/72-5mm-ecotherm-eco-liner-rigid-pir-dry-lining-insulated-plasterboard-for-fix-and-dab-applications but a second layer of battens over the PIR (screwed through to the battens behind) to carry the OSB. This has fewer PIR joints to cut & foam, so may be easier to build and have less thermal bridging. Also fewer penetrations of the VCL (the battens only need fixed every 500mm or so). And gives you a service cavity for any wiring etc if you care about hiding that away. Bear in mind that PIR is efficient for heat insulation but not particularly effective for noise insulation: if that's your priority then a detail based on acoustic fibre or cellulose would be worth exploring.

This was brilliant, thanks for posting! I enjoyed the Glazier climbing up to the conservatory roof on some sort of trestle with large pane of glass in one hand and cigarette in the other 🤣 Also the idea that we'd all have electric vehicles and could charge them at night from our personal gas generators. And Valerie Singleton being presented with the programmable day/night thermostat and asking if people would have to go on a course to use it. But my favourite moment had to be when they showed what looked like it might be a wood burning stove in the living room before explaining it was a coal-fired boiler which would be useful in 2000 due to the limited availability of North Sea Gas, then later noted that someone would probably invent a more convenient way of feeding the coal in. 🤣

First question would be roughly where are you, are you in a conservation area or similar? The drawings mention "conservation style roof light" which (together with the appearance of the building) suggests you might be in an area with sensitivities around planning permission. My hunch would be that if they did work not that long ago and only expanded the rear dormer, that could well be because they knew they wouldn't get permission to extend on the side facing the street...